Page 2818 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
approved, for example, in the B1 development area. I was also fortunate to chair and be involved with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee through the very public, open and exhaustive process that established the area guidelines and qualitative assessments for B1. I believe that, in relation to what we are doing at B1, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and this Assembly got it right. I believe that the changes which we made to the draft development guidelines for B1, which were overwhelmingly endorsed by this house, are the proper way for us to go in that area-specific development.
This inquiry will be used as a test. I do not believe that it will be stilted. I do not believe that there are predetermined outcomes. I think that anybody who says that has substantially underestimated the inquirer and his very commendable track record. But it is a test. It is a test as to whether or not this Assembly is prepared to allow a process, which will be an open process, to be concluded and then accept the outcome. The interesting thing is that each of the members of the Opposition and the Independents expect the Government to be bound by the outcome of this inquiry. I call upon the Opposition and the Independents also to be bound by the outcome of this inquiry - and that is the real test.
MR DE DOMENICO (4.54): I rise to make some brief comments. I am a member of the PDI Committee. Mr Kaine and Mr Lamont are former members. I will take up where Mr Lamont finished and I will say to Mr Lamont that not everybody in this place is going to be happy with what Mr Lansdown has to say. In fact, I will go a step further and say that, in issues of planning in this place, no-one will ever see a successful outcome. Nowhere in this country has there ever been 100 per cent agreement with the outcome of any planning inquiry. We can see that from what happened when Mr Lansdown and the secretariat were appointed. Not everybody agreed with the appointment of Mr Lansdown or the appointment of the secretariat. That is what is going to happen.
Mr Acting Speaker, I think that, in your remarks, you hit the nail on the head. Both the developers and the community want one thing, and that is surety. They want to be told, "This is what can happen; this is where it can happen; this is when it can happen; and this is how it can happen". That is possible. But let us realise that, notwithstanding what decision is made, not everybody is going to be happy. I can certainly say that a lot of people will be happier if any decision is made, because what the community is concerned about, perhaps more than anything else, is a lack of decision and a lack of surety.
I agree with Mr Lamont that we have seen some horrendous examples of dual occupancy in this town. I keep hearing people from Griffith, Banks, everywhere, saying, "We believe that we are going to get another Kingston in our suburb". Of course, we all know that that is not going to happen; but the perception out there in the community has now reached the stage where I believe that it has converted itself into a frenzy. As soon as you mention the words "dual occupancy", "urban infill", or whatever, people expect to see the ugly multistorey examples that we find in Kingston. There is also some very good development in the area of Kingston. Let me put that on the record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .